Could we please not derail this thread with a semantic argument about the meaning of the word "stronger."

Jay

Practice what you preach.

I think I do. Show me otherwise, or shut the fuck up.

Jay

OK, easy enough.

jt512 wrote:

I don't think that it is a forgone conclusion that a moderately grooved carabiner is weaker than an an ungrooved one. Limited information from BD suggests that the point where the groove develops, the bottom of the carabiner's basket, is not where carabiners typically break in any common failure mode. So moderate weakening there may have no effect on the biner's ultimate strength. Of course, BD presents limited data on a single model of carabiner, so we should be careful about drawing hasty conclusions from it or generalizing it to other models of carabiner.

Jay

More talk of biner strength.

jt512 wrote:

As I stated over there, a possible limitation of this test is that it looks like they created the groove in the biner using a file or some other tool. I'd like to see more tests of biners that have been grooved by natural use, including tests of non-fixed biners with more rounded grooves, in order to get a better a better understanding of the risks that these biners pose.

Jay

To pretend you aren't helping perpetuate talk of the semantics of biner strength and therefore not "practicing what you preach" is nothing more than obvious denial of facts.

If you think that that is arguing over semantics, there's not much I can do to help you. At best, I could spend way too much time and effort explaining why it is not, only to have you still not get it.

Edit: You're so lost that you don't even see that the second quote isn't even about biner strength, in any sense of the term.